The job market is now global. The internet allows for the sharing and modification, in nigh real-time, of large documents. It seems silly for GW to continue making rules for their game when it's obvious they don't want to, and they're not really that good at it. Licensing their rules-making to a company who is interested in making "Great rules first, models second, or not at all" would allow GW to really focus on their "We're a model company first, rules are second" mentality.
GW doesn't risk model leaks as the models stay in house. They could write the contract to retain as much control over the IP and final product as required. They remain in control of what gets released, and when. By outsourcing this part of the business they could afford to play test more rigorously as well. Giving GW the benefit of the doubt by agreeing that they don't instigate power creep just to sell models, I can't see the downsides to this.
Well... where to start without coming across as snarky or GW hating....
1. I would say that GW has no interest in outsourcing the rules making, as it would involve collaboration and information sharing, opening way to many avenues for leaks ect.
2.It is most likely a heck of a lot cheaper to have a few people in house to write the BRB/ Codices than to share a percentage of revenue with another company.
3. GW likes to pretend that they are a model company first, game company last, but we all know the fallacy of that. Seriously though, what percentage of people are actually buying an army to have it sit on a display board? One off models or a unit to make a cool diarama heck yes, but for the volume they do the vast majority is to gamers.
IMHO they think the games rules don't have to be amazing, just good enough that people keep buying the plastic-crack.
Now lets say GW actually did decide to do something like that..... My hope would be Fantasy Flight would give it a swing.
I think you might be on to something. Unfortunately, I think they will be too afraid of leaks to give it a try. They may also be wary of outsourcing too much. They already give fantasy flight a fair amount of licensing.
The only reason GW is so afraid of leaks is supposedly because of pressure from New Line Cinema, concerning LotR products.
Basically any leak from GW on Smaug for example, would bleed out to the internet and EVERYONE would see it early. New Line doesn't want that, so they told GW no early leaks.
Then things like Necrons happen where the entire release was leaked months in advance, and New Line sees it as a weakness on GW's part. New Line strong arms GW, GW tightens their lips about releases.
That is the excuse I've gotten from local GW managers.
I don't see how those same policies couldn't apply to a rules design house. Furthermore, if you had a rules licensing, said designer wouldn't ever need to see the models, and models are the only leaks GW cares to keep secret.
What SHOULD happen:
GW releases an army with X models, and X rules. 6 months down the road, GW decides to release a new model, and as such(since it was not included in the codex) the rules for it are included in the box as a supplement.
At the end of the year, a compilation of all supplemental rules is released a la Warhammer Annual(how I miss thee) for a small price($20-25) with some other content like the Annual had.
This would free GW from the crazy fluctuations in sales, and would keep players of X army buying more regularly, rather than in single large spurts.
GW is so set in their ways on how they go about releasing rules and models that I don't imagine they will change anything under the current management.
Now how great would it be if one of us won the Mega Millions lottery, bought out GW, and then hired Privateer Press or some other company to come in and fix everything?
GW, interestingly enough, seems to have little interest in expanding their business. They don't advertise and so closely guard their IP (needlessly so) that they've rendered any kind of expansion impossible.
Aerethan wrote: Furthermore, if you had a rules licensing, said designer wouldn't ever need to see the models, and models are the only leaks GW cares to keep secret.
One note on this: leaks of "just rules" would still have a negative effect (in GW's eyes) as even knowing that there's a new type of model, or knowing that the rules for an existing model are going to change can affect the sales before the new rules come out. This, I think, is one of GW's major reasons for clamping down on early advertising for new releases. For instance:
Right now, only those that care enough to pay attention will know of the impending release of the Eldar next month. Those that don't know about it (the vast majority of GW's target audience) will still possibly be buying models right up to the point that they are announced, not knowing any better. Hell, there was someone at my local shop that was considering picking up some Eldar Jetbikes right up until I let him know "um, you probably want to wait on that..." since the Jetbikes are probably 99% likely to be receiving new models that aren't dated to before man learned to fly.
Rules leaks, in this sense, can have the same negative effect as pictures: if we knew that (as an example) Eldar Farseers were getting a huge nerf in the next codex and that the Wave Serpent was going to be getting a completely new batch of weapons (implying that a new sprue was being added to the box), those models would see a big dip in sales in the leadup to the new release.
Really, though, I agree with the general consensus: GW values control over every other possible value that they might possibly hold. At most, they would consider just hiring a dedicated rules team for each game instead of having people splitting time between writing rules for various games and fiction in their spare time. Even that is highly unlikely, though, as it would require them to expend resources towards something that they have clearly shown to not be one of their priorities.
Even some manner of oversight would be nice at this point. It appears that writers currently get to do wtf ever they want, and no one tells them otherwise.
WFB players wanted to give Matt Ward a second chance not to screw up, and yet he couldn't help himself but put in an item that is a hard counter to an ENTIRE army.
I see no reason NOT to run 60 swordmasters with all of my characters, the Stubborn crown, and BSB with World Dragon against any Daemon player.
I gave fantasy a chance and it let me down, I wanted to like it but...I mean I couldn't... 6th was trash when I first began hearing about it and I sold off my armies for it right away
I regret nothing.
I do wish GW would just let someone else make their rules, because their rules are just awful, and getting worse and worse.
I have no intensive to buy anything-why should I if I feel the games suck a bag of cow dung?!
To me its just like buying model airplanes and cars, except so much more expensive. They sit on a shelf like a model car does... why not just buy a model car, I'll probably enjoy it more anyways...
Aerethan wrote: Now how great would it be if one of us won the Mega Millions lottery, bought out GW, and then hired Privateer Press or some other company to come in and fix everything?
and then hired Privateer Press or some other company to come in and fix everything?[
Aerethan wrote: Now how great would it be if one of us won the Mega Millions lottery, bought out GW, and then hired Privateer Press or some other company to come in and fix everything?
and then hired Privateer Press or some other company to come in and fix everything?[
Privateer Press
NO.
NO.
Okay I'll bite. Humour me as to why PP are so bad at writing rules?
Aerethan wrote: Now how great would it be if one of us won the Mega Millions lottery, bought out GW, and then hired Privateer Press or some other company to come in and fix everything?
and then hired Privateer Press or some other company to come in and fix everything?[
Privateer Press
NO.
NO.
Okay I'll bite. Humour me as to why PP are so bad at writing rules?
Dis gon be gud.
It's got nothing to do with their abilities to write rules.
It's the idea of farming out the rules to a 3rd-party company like Privateer Press, which basically lives off people saying "OMG GW GAEMS SUCK PLAY WARMAHORDES INSTEAD LOL!" to survive.
Myself, I think GW rules are fine the way they are. I'm pretty glad they've focused on adding narrative supplements intended to make the game "fun" rather than pandering to uber-competitive TFGs.
tl:dr - GW is all about the money not about the fun and fair gaming.
darefsky wrote: 3. GW likes to pretend that they are a model company first, game company last, but we all know the fallacy of that. Seriously though, what percentage of people are actually buying an army to have it sit on a display board? One off models or a unit to make a cool diorama heck yes, but for the volume they do the vast majority is to gamers.
You are completely wrong here. GW is all about selling miniatures and nothing more. The game is a device that facilitates the sales of tiny plastic toys. This becomes clearer when you look at various editions and how they changed play style, causing people to need new/more models to update their armies for the new edition. Now contrast this with games like Gorkamorka and Necromunda. Both were reasonably good games that weren't designed to expand existing model collections or drive people to buy new ones. Both were left to languish and ultimately broomed.
darefsky wrote: 1. I would say that GW has no interest in outsourcing the rules making, as it would involve collaboration and information sharing, opening way to many avenues for leaks etc.
spyguyyoda wrote: I think you might be on to something. Unfortunately, I think they will be too afraid of leaks to give it a try. They may also be wary of outsourcing too much. They already give fantasy flight a fair amount of licensing.
GW is all about control. Control of revenue. Control of IP. Control of the "hobby" as GW sees it. Sharing, by definition mitigates control and GW will not abide that. The only thing they license out is stuff that GW has zero interest in producing in-house i.e., RPG books, computer games, etc.
Aerethan wrote: Furthermore, if you had a rules licensing, said designer wouldn't ever need to see the models, and models are the only leaks GW cares to keep secret.
One note on this: leaks of "just rules" would still have a negative effect (in GW's eyes) as even knowing that there's a new type of model, or knowing that the rules for an existing model are going to change can affect the sales before the new rules come out. This, I think, is one of GW's major reasons for clamping down on early advertising for new releases.
This goes to my point that the game is designed specifically to drive sales of models. If new unit were to make Rhinos worthless then people would stop buying Rhinos in anticipation of the upcoming release. That's bad for GW.
mattyrm wrote: Not a bad idea in my book. I don't think I really care who makes the rules, and clearly other companies can do a better job of it.
This goes back to the top of my post about what the goal of the rules are. If "a fun and balanced game" are what you care about then you are correct that GW suffers in doing this. If you accept that GW adjusts the rules each edition to sell new models and/or more models and work as a game second, then nobody does it as well as GW.
Breotan wrote: tl:dr - GW is all about the money not about the fun and fair gaming.
darefsky wrote: 3. GW likes to pretend that they are a model company first, game company last, but we all know the fallacy of that. Seriously though, what percentage of people are actually buying an army to have it sit on a display board? One off models or a unit to make a cool diorama heck yes, but for the volume they do the vast majority is to gamers.
You are completely wrong here. GW is all about selling miniatures and nothing more. The game is a device that facilitates the sales of tiny plastic toys. This becomes clearer when you look at various editions and how they changed play style, causing people to need new/more models to update their armies for the new edition. Now contrast this with games like Gorkamorka and Necromunda. Both were reasonably good games that weren't designed to expand existing model collections or drive people to buy new ones. Both were left to languish and ultimately broomed.
darefsky wrote: 1. I would say that GW has no interest in outsourcing the rules making, as it would involve collaboration and information sharing, opening way to many avenues for leaks etc.
spyguyyoda wrote: I think you might be on to something. Unfortunately, I think they will be too afraid of leaks to give it a try. They may also be wary of outsourcing too much. They already give fantasy flight a fair amount of licensing.
GW is all about control. Control of revenue. Control of IP. Control of the "hobby" as GW sees it. Sharing, by definition mitigates control and GW will not abide that. The only thing they license out is stuff that GW has zero interest in producing in-house i.e., RPG books, computer games, etc.
Aerethan wrote: Furthermore, if you had a rules licensing, said designer wouldn't ever need to see the models, and models are the only leaks GW cares to keep secret.
One note on this: leaks of "just rules" would still have a negative effect (in GW's eyes) as even knowing that there's a new type of model, or knowing that the rules for an existing model are going to change can affect the sales before the new rules come out. This, I think, is one of GW's major reasons for clamping down on early advertising for new releases.
This goes to my point that the game is designed specifically to drive sales of models. If new unit were to make Rhinos worthless then people would stop buying Rhinos in anticipation of the upcoming release. That's bad for GW.
mattyrm wrote: Not a bad idea in my book. I don't think I really care who makes the rules, and clearly other companies can do a better job of it.
This goes back to the top of my post about what the goal of the rules are. If "a fun and balanced game" are what you care about then you are correct that GW suffers in doing this. If you accept that GW adjusts the rules each edition to sell new models and/or more models and work as a game second, then nobody does it as well as GW.
I think we are saying the same thing at the very top of this quote. Rules for the game drive sales of the miniatures. GW says they are a miniatures company but the biggest (by far) reason to purchase said mini's it to play the game.
As to PP I would image they have no interest in writing rules for GW. Why strengthen the only people on the business that can utterly destroy your company if they had a competent set of rules?
If GW decided that the games should be competitive and the rules balanced the best thing they could do would be to hire a team dedicated to rules interactions and a TECHNICAL WRITER or two, so that the RAI and RAW would be the same. They would need a good amount of "out of house" play testing (heck make people sign NDA's) PP does this and it works well.
Heck if they did that and put together a great game that was fun to play and winnable because I was a better player vs your cheese of the month, I would probably come back to the GW. Till then i'll have fun playing WM/H.
Breotan wrote: Now contrast this with games like Gorkamorka and Necromunda. Both were reasonably good games that weren't designed to expand existing model collections or drive people to buy new ones.
Erm. At least Necromunda required your gangs to be WYSIWYG and since a lot of the stuff you'd find was random... that was a hell of a lot of converting/purchasing to do. Which is an absolute driver for people to buy models.
Aerethan wrote: My bit about PP writing GW rules was under the hypothetical that someone bought out GW and decided to then merge it with PP.
God I hope PP would never even entertain that idea. , I honestly think they would choke on the massive bloated corporate structure that is GW. I could see Hasbro buying them out, They have the manpower and funding available to make an acquisition of that size.
What would be absolutely hysterical to me would be if Disney decided to do it. Talk about a theme park........
Just security walking around all dressed like inquisitors.....muhahahah....
BryllCream wrote:Outsourcing any kind of creative work is generally a bad idea
Why? A lot of miniatures companies do it. You think every model companies like Privateer puts out are sculpted in house?
Squigsquasher wrote:It's the idea of farming out the rules to a 3rd-party company like Privateer Press, which basically lives off people saying "OMG GW GAEMS SUCK PLAY WARMAHORDES INSTEAD LOL!" to survive.
Myself, I think GW rules are fine the way they are. I'm pretty glad they've focused on adding narrative supplements intended to make the game "fun" rather than pandering to uber-competitive TFGs.
Quite a bit of pent up rage there, huh? Are you really saying that the only appeal PP has is that it's not GW?
And pandering to uber-competitive TFGs? You mean having a ruleset that doesn't need players to come up with their own FAQ's and an actual tournament ruleset is pandering?
Breotan wrote: Now contrast this with games like Gorkamorka and Necromunda. Both were reasonably good games that weren't designed to expand existing model collections or drive people to buy new ones.
Erm. At least Necromunda required your gangs to be WYSIWYG and since a lot of the stuff you'd find was random... that was a hell of a lot of converting/purchasing to do. Which is an absolute driver for people to buy models.
This was true initially when Necromunda came out because they had a Bits catalogue and even sold bits sprues. Those days are long gone and because of that (and the fact that so many people have too many bits around) the old warhorse Necromunda was finally sold to the glue factory.
Backfire wrote: Which I suppose is ironic as PP seems to gradually become more GW-like.
How?
Hmm, their new gimmick is big, overpriced monster models, sound familiar...? Also, their recent models have been increasingly cartoonish, they are gradually giving up metal (which was once a point of pride for them), also, didn't they recently have a PR debacle with a fan site? I guess what's coming next is secretive publication policy and sloppily written rulebooks...
BryllCream wrote:Outsourcing any kind of creative work is generally a bad idea
Why? A lot of miniatures companies do it. You think every model companies like Privateer puts out are sculpted in house?
Wait, you mean outsourcing to companies or to the developing world? Judging by this reply I assume you mean other companies, in which case forget my previous remark.
The reason they won't is because rules writing and model design are intrinsically linked and the design process is a circular thing, with one inspiring the other.
By the time they get ideas etc all together and share WIP concepts/ sculpt images etc it's just a lot cheaper, more efficient and more effective I imagine to have people sitting around the same table.
Backfire wrote: Which I suppose is ironic as PP seems to gradually become more GW-like.
How?
Hmm, their new gimmick is big, overpriced monster models, sound familiar...? Also, their recent models have been increasingly cartoonish, they are gradually giving up metal (which was once a point of pride for them), also, didn't they recently have a PR debacle with a fan site? I guess what's coming next is secretive publication policy and sloppily written rulebooks...
Hmm, their new gimmick is big, overpriced monster models, sound familiar...?
Battle Engines and Colossals/Gargantuans? The things that are mostly referred to as underpowered? When you say gimmick do you mean a type of sales tactic? I see these as just another option. Definitely not an auto-include
Also, their recent models have been increasingly cartoonish
Subjective
they are gradually giving up metal (which was once a point of pride for them)
That's true, they were all about full metal miniatures, but I can see why they would switch some of their larger items to plastic. Without plastics they wouldn't have been able to create the extremely useful 3-jack plastic sets.
also, didn't they recently have a PR debacle with a fan site?
Team Covenant? I'm not sure what exactly that was all about, but I wouldn't pick a side if the only people doing the talking were those that were supposedly wronged.
Backfire wrote: Which I suppose is ironic as PP seems to gradually become more GW-like.
How?
Hmm, their new gimmick is big, overpriced monster models, sound familiar...? Also, their recent models have been increasingly cartoonish, they are gradually giving up metal (which was once a point of pride for them), also, didn't they recently have a PR debacle with a fan site? I guess what's coming next is secretive publication policy and sloppily written rulebooks...
"New Gimmick"? Gargossals have been in development since Mk1 (they were meant to be in Apotheosis IIRC) and have been being developed in the background since Superiority.
They are considerably not overpriced in the context of the game, both in price and points. This really does not need explaining further.
Yes, they also said they'd deplete the world of metal by 2006 and reinvented the wheel by covering it in spikes and rolling it over your grandma's house. Your point?
The only edition of any of the Warhammer games that was put together correctly was the WFB 5 ( ? ) edition.. the one that Toumas Perinin wrote. Remember it had the Ravening Hordes in the WD issue?
ALL those armies were balanced with one another because ONE person wrote them ALL!!
Not the current " New guy in shipping? -- Alright High Elves army book ? Here ya go!!"
FarseerAndyMan wrote: The only edition of any of the Warhammer games that was put together correctly was the WFB 5 ( ? ) edition.. the one that Toumas Perinin wrote. Remember it had the Ravening Hordes in the WD issue?
ALL those armies were balanced with one another because ONE person wrote them ALL!!
Not the current " New guy in shipping? -- Alright High Elves army book ? Here ya go!!"
6th ed.
It was also apparently the worst thing ever for the game when he left GW as the rest of the dev team had to interpret what he meant with some of the rules when making further changes.
They NEED to hire people to break their army books. I remember it being something of a tradition within my local store with a certain friend of mine and ex-staffer who could break any army within an hour. It showed there was (and still is) a serious problem with GW's army book writing.
I agree , hire TFG and have him and his powergaming buddies try to break the rules.
I guess the thing of it is..once you and your friends have found a play style, stick with it.
This edition of 40K is made for gamers, not lawyers. And when you can accept that the game gets much more fun.
Backfire wrote: Which I suppose is ironic as PP seems to gradually become more GW-like.
Team Covenant? I'm not sure what exactly that was all about, but I wouldn't pick a side if the only people doing the talking were those that were supposedly wronged.
From what I've heard, they deserved every bit of what they got.
The biggest problem is viewing it as a balanced game rather than a way to artificially modify sales...
Couple of current situations that lead me to believe this:
1. Carnifex nerf. Every tyranid player and his uncle were playing carnifexes so limit their options and increase their cost then add a plethora of 6 W MCs and suddenly carnifexes are crap.
2/ Nerf the broadside. Again every Tau player probably played 4 to 6 of these with S10 railguns... Nerf it down to S8 and it suddenly looks like crap comparitively.
3. Flyer rules. Really, this feels so much like a poor add on but we are talking sales of 80$ models here... lets make them awesome.
4. Reduce the cost of troops thereby players will buy more. Certainly the reduction in cost of SM, CSM, Tau are all contributing but the mother of all cost reductions was the Orc Boy 9 to 6. Can anyone say 100 boys instead of 60.
5. Lessened but it still exists - new codex-itis. The latest codex seems to supplant all the previous ones through new broken units and/or cost reductions.
A solid game-first company would start with a base and develop it from there... Say 15 points for a marine and then look at the relative value of various troops so is a Grey hunter with counter attack and free special weapons a 15 pt or 16 pt figure? Is a CSM without ATSKNF worth 15 , 14 or 13?
Fafnir wrote:Not to mention that most competitive players actually want a well written, balanced ruleset.
Great, well that's 2% of the wargaming fanbase sorted, then...... But what about the 98% of non-competitive players....?
BryllCream wrote:Outsourcing any kind of creative work is generally a bad idea
Hold on, what?
In most creative fields, where the ideas and the quality of the personnel matter above all else (since it's all to do with the judgement/talent of individuals), you'll generally find that the most talented people either run their own companies or work freelance, because there's much more money to make. I can't think of a single creative industry (web design, filmmaking, graphic design, advertising, art department) where better products are produced by in-house teams. You'll ALWAYS get better, more varied, more daring ideas by outsourcing to people who are good enough to make a living freelance....
Ideally GW or whomever they turned the rule generation over to (FFG Maybe, sense they already have rights to a lot of the IP), would reboot the entire game. The major problem that exists is (IMHO) 3 fold:
1) You have a SciFi shooter based on a Fantasy game. The two are in a lot of ways exclusive to eachother as the tactics of the day are dictated by the weapons that exist. Can you imagine if our soldiers still lined up Civil War style to fight? So why is out SciFi game played out like a ridged Medieval War type game? A reboot would allow the group writting the rules to create a game that melds the fluid environment of modern war (or in this case futuristic war) with the game itself.
2) Codex creep. The problem here is that it is self-generating. Lets say a new Eldar Codex comes out, well now inorder for people to more interested in buying the new Eldar models they have to make the codex more powerful then whatever came out last, otherwise people would simply say "Yes it's a new codex, but the rules are feth and so I'm gonna stick with my SM because their codex was good." So each subsequnt rulebook has to be better then the previous rules to get people to buy them. By rebooting the rules they could generate all of the applicable codex at the same time, thus ensuring that no codex is so much more powerful then any other. It would obviously take some time to write a coesive codex for each army, but I wouldn't mind if it meant that at the end of 2014 every army had equal potential. (And an up-to-date rule book)
3) Model shock. GW is a model company and thus while the do make some money on codex (rule) sales, the bulk of their income is from the sale of models. Inorder to push there new models, they have to release rules for the models, and that means a new codex which means see point 2. This also is what causes their sales to fluctuate so badly because they have a huge spike when a new set of models comes out and it trickles off until they release another bulk of models. Instead they should look at what already exists, create balanced rules for these models and then release models over the year until the next codex is released.
So my plan would work like this: All the current codex and rules are re-written all at once (lets say by Dec 2014) by the same people who work on all of the codex collectively. After that any models that are releast in the following year are ether remakes of models that already exist but badly need updated (you know who you are), or new models. New models would come with their own rules insert that would be included to the new codex at the end of the year. Each Decemeber every army recieves a new codex with the updated models in it, allowing them to adjust new rules without having to release an FAQ 2 days after writting a codex.
This way every army stays balanced, every model recieves its fair dues, and you would only have to deal with any poorly written rules for a maximum of 12 months. On top of that, each released model acts like a small preview to that years codex without having to hide all of their IP for months waiting for a release, thus midigating leakage.
Fafnir wrote:Not to mention that most competitive players actually want a well written, balanced ruleset.
Great, well that's 2% of the wargaming fanbase sorted, then...... But what about the 98% of non-competitive players....?
Yeah, a well written balanced rule set would crap all over non-competitive players. It's only ever competitive players who post in YMDC and ask questions.
I'd wager 93 out of that 98% would be happy with that regardless if how competitive they play. The last 5% you'll never please anyway.
@Imperal - that's a really lovely thought, but it would be a logistical nightmare publication wise. Further, they'd just be sitting on product that wasnt making them money.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And it definitely won't be FFG. If FFG wanted to pursue making miniatures games, they wouldn't have allowed the Dust contract to expire.
Fafnir wrote:Not to mention that most competitive players actually want a well written, balanced ruleset.
Great, well that's 2% of the wargaming fanbase sorted, then...... But what about the 98% of non-competitive players....?
Because a concise, cogent, well written and balanced ruleset with little room for interpretation that puts everyone on an even platform would completely destroy the experience for non-competitive players, right?
Well in the intermediary people will still buy models/codex it's just the sales will not be as high. That's where my idea of releasing new models with new rules comes in, then you just add them to the codex or campaign book or whatever at the end of the year. Plus then the rules can be edited on an as needed bases instead of whenever they get around to redoing individual codex.
Imperial Deceit wrote: Well in the intermediary people will still buy models/codex it's just the sales will not be as high.
yeah, that wont Fly.
That's where my idea of releasing new models with new rules comes in, then you just add them to the codex or campaign book or whatever at the end of the year. Plus then the rules can be edited on an as needed bases instead of whenever they get around to redoing individual codex.
Edited on as as needed basis? So they just keep releasing FAQs? I think you're really underestimating how much would be involved with what you're proposing.
Imperial Deceit wrote: Well in the intermediary people will still buy models/codex it's just the sales will not be as high.
yeah, that wont Fly.
That's where my idea of releasing new models with new rules comes in, then you just add them to the codex or campaign book or whatever at the end of the year. Plus then the rules can be edited on an as needed bases instead of whenever they get around to redoing individual codex.
Edited on as as needed basis? So they just keep releasing FAQs? I think you're really underestimating how much would be involved with what you're proposing.
Yep a better and easier way to do what your proposing would be to do it all at the start of a new addition. Heck GW could even take there time and extend the 5 year cycle out a year or two and give themselves plenty of time for play testing and adjustments.
Imperial Deceit wrote: Well in the intermediary people will still buy models/codex it's just the sales will not be as high.
yeah, that wont Fly.
That's where my idea of releasing new models with new rules comes in, then you just add them to the codex or campaign book or whatever at the end of the year. Plus then the rules can be edited on an as needed bases instead of whenever they get around to redoing individual codex.
Edited on as as needed basis? So they just keep releasing FAQs? I think you're really underestimating how much would be involved with what you're proposing.
Yep a better and easier way to do what your proposing would be to do it all at the start of a new addition. Heck GW could even take there time and extend the 5 year cycle out a year or two and give themselves plenty of time for play testing and adjustments.
I addressed that in my first post. This isn't about doing what they are doing now in a faster pace, it's about maintaining the system after a complete reboot that still allows them to introduce new models. Also I know that it "won't fly", hence why I immediately addressed this in the following lines. It's not about releasing a constant stream of FAQs, it's about a producing a new model, and simply adding a slip of paper with a stat line and special rules attached. All of the fluff can wait for the end of year updates. So for the future, read the entirety of someones post before you jump to conclusions and one line rebutles (a generous description in this case.)
The only thing you've said that I can see them doing is including rule sheets in boxes. And even that's tenuous at best when you have a magazine and a digital platform you can release them in. I think they SHOULD, but that doesn't mean they will. Besides, what you're proposing is no different than the splash releases GW has been doing the past 18 months. Fliers, Demon splash releases, etc. Those splash releases would likely not be enough on their own to drive the numbers the shareholders have become accustomed to.
In order to do what you proposed release wise, they'd have to change their entire business model which, as a public company, isn't going to happen. Privateer can trickle releases out and miss deadlines and launch dates because they're not beholden to shareholders. GW can't. Privateer is also operating under a completely different set of expectations from these types of communities. MonPoc disappears/is discontinued? Barely a murmur. Specialist games are dumped? Internet shitstorm.
But that's really besides the point. Would it be ideal to do a Mark II for 40k 7th edition? Probably. But the scope of what would be required by GW is much larger than the undertaking Privateer had to (in sheer terms of point values they'd need to rewrite) and it would require them to either hire a significant amount of testers or allow a closed public beta to occur with NDAs in place. Fiscally, right now the first makes little sense. And based on GWs corporate culture, it's very unlikely the 2nd would ever happen.
Internet wish listing is great and all, but it's significantly more impactful if you offer some ideas that could reasonably happen considering all we know about GW and how they conduct business.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hire testers? Play testers don't have to get paid.
Right. Maybe I didn't address that well enough. For GW they could either hire testers or have a closed beta with NDAs. The first, like I said, is fiscally unlikely. The 2nd seems unlikely based on precedents set by GW. I can't see them opening up their beta as broadly as, say, PP did for MkII.
I liked the way FFG did their (mostly) public beta for Only War. Anyone could join, they just had to buy the $20 beta rulebook PDF. It was a cut-down rulebook with all the art and most of the fluff missing, but all the rules were present. FFG set up a special forum and encouraged people to send in reports.
Of course, these sorts of things (selling PDF’s, selling PDF’s at a low price point, encouraging feedback, engaging with their target audience) are an anathema to GW, so it’s unlikely it would ever happen.
They’d be better served with an extensive NDA-based private beta.
HBMC - do you know if that's how GW play testing presently, or has ever been? I was always under the impression that all their "testing" was done in house?
Btw I completely agree that the way FFG did their open betas was fantastic.
But that's really besides the point. Would it be ideal to do a Mark II for 40k 7th edition? Probably. But the scope of what would be required by GW is much larger than the undertaking Privateer had to (in sheer terms of point values they'd need to rewrite) and it would require them to either hire a significant amount of testers or allow a closed public beta to occur with NDAs in place. Fiscally, right now the first makes little sense. And based on GWs corporate culture, it's very unlikely the 2nd would ever happen.
Would you believe me if I said there were more units entries in the WM/H playtest than there are current 40k units? Run some numbers, you'll be surprised. I don't think anything PP does should ever be outside the scope of GW.
Internet wish listing is great and all, but it's significantly more impactful if you offer some ideas that could reasonably happen considering all we know about GW and how they conduct business.
Well there's the rub. GW have shown zero intention of changing their business strategies in any way, let alone rules design.
I know there are more units, but there are less options. That's the primary problem. Further, when PP did their MarkII reboot, there were less options.
But it's always been PPs modus operandi to do the expansion books with a few models per book. It's a pretty big difference from how GW conducts their business.
cincydooley wrote: HBMC - do you know if that's how GW play testing presently, or has ever been? I was always under the impression that all their "testing" was done in house?
IIRC, back in the 90's and early 00's, they did outside testing.
To answer the original question.
GW plc sees the rules and codex/army books as a way to help sell the latest minatures.
Hence, the prevalence of exclusive rules writing , to make the new models sound cooler...
Other companies use the GAME PLAY to drive AND MAINTAIN interest in their games and minature ranges.
This makes ALL minatures ranges popular and usable all the time.
Spending a fortune developing and manufacturing new minature ranges means GW HAS to rely on very expencive B&M stores to use isolationist marketing to get the amount of profit they need to cover the cost of the stores and this counter intuitive release method.
But what do these other companies know ?They are growing their customer base and expanding their market share...
ONLY GW plc is getting more money from its customer while giving them less and less each year.And allowing the Chairman of the Board to get massive payouts every year...
And as far as the Chairman of the Board sees, this is far more important.
BryllCream wrote:Outsourcing any kind of creative work is generally a bad idea
Why? A lot of miniatures companies do it. You think every model companies like Privateer puts out are sculpted in house?
Wait, you mean outsourcing to companies or to the developing world? Judging by this reply I assume you mean other companies, in which case forget my previous remark.
Actually, you and a great many others on this forum are wrong about GW "never targeting competitive players" At one time GW definitely included tournament players as one of its target markets. They spent a fair amount supporting RTT and grand tournaments and there is an entire page in the 4th edition 40k book extolling the virtues of tournament play.
Its really only people that have started playing in recent years that have not seen a real shift in the GW attitude toward tournaments. You cant blame him because its his job, but Jervis is a huge hypocrite about competitive play these days.
As bad as things are now it could be even worse if they farmed out the rules. Not because others couldnt do a better job than the miserable rats writing the current rules but I could see a lot of complications that would just serve to delay things.
It is completely unneccassary to farm the rules out anyway, it would just be easier to hire someone that was competent. At this low watermark they could be average, but look brilliant compared to the current knuckleheads.
Because a concise, cogent, well written and balanced ruleset with little room for interpretation that puts everyone on an even platform would completely destroy the experience for non-competitive players, right?
Assuming it reads like the water-tight, totally balanced fandexes I've read, then yes, it'll be boring as hell and immediately offputting. Live a little!
Actually, you and a great many others on this forum are wrong about GW "never targeting competitive players" At one time GW definitely included tournament players as one of its target markets. They spent a fair amount supporting RTT and grand tournaments and there is an entire page in the 4th edition 40k book extolling the virtues of tournament play.
Its really only people that have started playing in recent years that have not seen a real shift in the GW attitude toward tournaments. You cant blame him because its his job, but Jervis is a huge hypocrite about competitive play these days.
Then I stand (kinda) corrected. Though it still sounds like GW explaining that the rules could be used for tournaments - as can anything, even Connect 4. I don't think previous editions were specifically designed for tournament/competative play in mind.
GW will never licence rules making, outsource may be, by their marketing is too heavily invested on the codexcreep to relinquish control of unit design.
Because a concise, cogent, well written and balanced ruleset with little room for interpretation that puts everyone on an even platform would completely destroy the experience for non-competitive players, right?
Assuming it reads like the water-tight, totally balanced fandexes I've read, then yes, it'll be boring as hell and immediately offputting. Live a little!
You mean even GW creating an imbalanced game is a good thing in your eyes?
BryllCream wrote: Assuming it reads like the water-tight, totally balanced fandexes I've read, then yes, it'll be boring as hell and immediately offputting.
So your answer to the question "How would casual players not benefit from a clean and concise set of rules" is "Live a little".
Great.
BryllCream wrote: Then I stand (kinda) corrected. Though it still sounds like GW explaining that the rules could be used for tournaments - as can anything, even Connect 4. I don't think previous editions were specifically designed for tournament/competative play in mind.
No, you stand completely corrected. When someone shows what you said ("Competative players have never been GW's target market") to be false, you concede. End of story.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So your answer to the question "How would casual players not benefit from a clean and concise set of rules" is "Live a little".
I really don't have a beef with streamlining and improving the rules. However, I will put in why it is bad for the casual player to have them streamlined. It all depends on what you see the goal of the game system to be. If you read, there are two main points:
1). If as a game designer, I want to create a game experiences that encourages the games players to interact with each other the most, and demonstrate a certain level of "espirit d' corp" with one another; one potential method to do that is to create a rules system that is the springboard for discussion.
To do that, you make it just a bit imprecise so the players must engage ahead of time to talk about some aspects of the rules and the game they are about to play. This then is an "ice breaker" which allows for social development to grow from. If you set-up the rules ackcordingly, you can minimize conflict and instead encourage discussion. From these growing bonds of social interaction, the game designer has now created a space for a community to develop around as they have a certain "way" to play.
2). Now, streamlined rules are bad for casual players because a discint set of clear and concise rules naturally leads people to no longer take the rules casually. The clearer and more concise, then people start to think that the "rules" are the be all and end all; and start worrying too much about "Official" this and "this is the correct way" versus just playing. It also tends to have people lean towards organized tournament play and the 'tourney practice" mindset, since the rules themselves lend themselves really well to such activities. This can be off-putting to someone who doesn't really care so much about the "correct" way and instead want to experience a general feel of play (Play in the child like sense, and not the competitive sense).
Again, I really don't car either way; but for the purposes of discussion I thought I would give it a shot.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So your answer to the question "How would casual players not benefit from a clean and concise set of rules" is "Live a little".
I really don't have a beef with streamlining and improving the rules. However, I will put in why it is bad for the casual player to have them streamlined. It all depends on what you see the goal of the game system to be. If you read, there are two main points:
1). If as a game designer, I want to create a game experiences that encourages the games players to interact with each other the most, and demonstrate a certain level of "espirit d' corp" with one another; one potential method to do that is to create a rules system that is the springboard for discussion.
To do that, you make it just a bit imprecise so the players must engage ahead of time to talk about some aspects of the rules and the game they are about to play. This then is an "ice breaker" which allows for social development to grow from. If you set-up the rules ackcordingly, you can minimize conflict and instead encourage discussion. From these growing bonds of social interaction, the game designer has now created a space for a community to develop around as they have a certain "way" to play.
Totally agree with you here. Playing the game with someone is effectively signing a social contract. The way it stands, GW's rules imply that that 'contract' is one to have fun, and less of one to be really competitive.
2). Now, streamlined rules are bad for casual players because a discint set of clear and concise rules naturally leads people to no longer take the rules casually. The clearer and more concise, then people start to think that the "rules" are the be all and end all; and start worrying too much about "Official" this and "this is the correct way" versus just playing. It also tends to have people lean towards organized tournament play and the 'tourney practice" mindset, since the rules themselves lend themselves really well to such activities. This can be off-putting to someone who doesn't really care so much about the "correct" way and instead want to experience a general feel of play (Play in the child like sense, and not the competitive sense).
Again, I really don't car either way; but for the purposes of discussion I thought I would give it a shot.
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree a touch. My hope would be that, using the 'contract' from before, that 'casual' players could simply enter into it as casual players and not rule-check everything. Casual players do that now with rule ambiguities, and (for us at least) simply go with the most common sense answer. WIth that being said, I don't think streamlining and tightening up the rules is bad for anyone. Will there be less rule ambiguities for the casual player to shrug off? Sure. But that doesn't mean their attitude when entering into the game has to change from casual. Plus, it would make the game better for the tournament-type player.
I think the 40k demographic is broad enough that a tightening up of the rule system wouldn't yield the same hyper-competitive player base that Warmahordes has (which isn't a bad thing). I think it would be more akin to M:tG: there are plenty of casual M:tG players out there that utilize the tight rules system to play all their various 'less competitive' game types, while the tight rules allow the tourny player to go hardcore. It's a win for both, I think.
Because a concise, cogent, well written and balanced ruleset with little room for interpretation that puts everyone on an even platform would completely destroy the experience for non-competitive players, right?
Assuming it reads like the water-tight, totally balanced fandexes I've read, then yes, it'll be boring as hell and immediately offputting. Live a little!
You mean even GW creating an imbalanced game is a good thing in your eyes?
Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool. I want the first and foremost thought of a game designer's mind to be "how can I make this awesome", not "how can I balance this". Obviously a degree of balance is nessesary to play the game, but 40k has that anyway. I'd like to see some blatently under/over-costed units being bought into line but I don't see why the whole game should be completely overhauled.
It doesn't need to be completely overhauled.
As you said, some units need to be brought in line.
Then it needs wording cleared up and actual rules writers let loose. None of the rules (really) need to change, they just need to be worded better.
And edition changes that alter the meta (ie - making assault worse, removing assault from reserves) should come with errata that changes the point cost of units that used those mechanics.
Of course one should always seek to be as unambiguous as possible in writing rules, but I think that goes without saying, along with correct spelling/grammar. Certainly GW do have a ways to go in that respect.
Fafnir wrote:Not to mention that most competitive players actually want a well written, balanced ruleset.
Great, well that's 2% of the wargaming fanbase sorted, then...... But what about the 98% of non-competitive players....?
They want a well written, balanced ruleset.
I don't know why people think that good rules are only for competitive players, everyone benefits from the rules being clear.
I'm a completely casual gamer, and play very infrequently but I must spend about 25% of my turn time flicking through the book trying to establish what I'm meant to do when X, Y or Z happens. What did they mean by that? Does special rule A overrule speciaul rule B?
The rules are a waffling, contradictory mess, and then benefits no-one.
Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool. I want the first and foremost thought of a game designer's mind to be "how can I make this awesome", not "how can I balance this". Obviously a degree of balance is nessesary to play the game, but 40k has that anyway. I'd like to see some blatently under/over-costed units being bought into line but I don't see why the whole game should be completely overhauled.
But if it's unbalanced and points values aren't tied to game effectiveness you end up with 1 of 2 situations:
1. A player with cool but poor value units is going to get slaughtered most of the time, which isn't fun. (Guard infantry Vs Terminator-heavy Marine units)
2. All the cool but poor value units are ignored by everyone and games are power lists, where everyone takes similar stuff and variety suffers.
The aim of having points values in the first place is that theoritically a any army list of any construction should be a reasonable match for any other army of the same size, within reason (a list with no anti-air will probably struggle against an all air list).
There's no way an unbalanced set of rules can benefit anyone, unless they are just ignoring them in which case they may as well be balanced.
A concise, cogent, well written and streamlined ruleset means less time flipping through (poorly written and poorly organized) rulebooks trying to lawyer what does what, and more time spent talking about how awesome it was when X unit did Y and Z happened.
I don't know about you, but my idea of 'narrative' play does not involve having to take 10 minute breaks in between turns just to figure out if my opponent and I are playing by the same rules.
To make an analogy to another game, Guilty Gear is one of the most balanced fighters out there. It's also one of the least boring games, let alone fighters, that I've ever played.
Infinity is a very well balanced (and mostly well written) game for the most part, and I've found my games in that to be far more entertaining than my games in 6th edition.
Boring mechanics make games boring (such as substituting player involvement for RANDOM). Not balance.
Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool.
If you haven't already, you need to start playing Palladium RPGs. You'll find them to be the coolest most exciting few hours you're capable of having by your own definition. I personally find them to be a poster child for why games need to be mechanically sound before adding in the "cool" stuff.
Balance in games would be boring because we all know that trying to piss up hill (due to imbalance) is the definition of living a little.
Does anyone else think the flyer book was GW having it's first foray into the PP style of release? Factions all having releases at the one time is brilliant in my opinion, not only does everyone get new toys at the same time making the metas change all that the same time and creating 6 months of interesting game play while people figure their crap out, it also shows you other factions stuff at the same time (which unfortunately does lead to "why aren't my toys as shiny syndrome" ) which does lead to faction buy in in my opinion.
Having everyone up to date is a great way to keep gamer satisfaction going , and gives you the benefit of being able to give "compensation" in the next book. Waiting 8 years for an update is far too long , playing 2 editions behind is deplorable.
In short GW farming the rules out so they can focus on miniature making would be a boon for the franchises.
Bullockist wrote: Does anyone else think the flyer book was GW having it's first foray into the PP style of release?
I'm not sure on that. While it'd be a nice idea it feels more like they were stuck. There isn't enough to warrant individual race releases but there's too much for a WD release or to just give it away. And of course the cynical among us will probably attribute it to the desire for cash. That said the only way this works is if they put rules in boxes/blisters too- otherwise a given book would be prohibitively expensive. When I played WM/H I eschewed buying the multi faction books because I just didn't need (or want) all that extra stuff for the other factions, just the rules for my faction. But it was fine since when I bought a model I got those rules- the multi faction book was a purely optional item. I strongly doubt GW will adopt a position that allows me to not buy a product.
At the end of the day I think GW feels that control of the rules plays too big a part in the control of sales. Releasing units means you can sell units to existing army owner. Releasing a new (or rewritten) codex sells the same units but it also sells new armies.
Because a concise, cogent, well written and balanced ruleset with little room for interpretation that puts everyone on an even platform would completely destroy the experience for non-competitive players, right?
Assuming it reads like the water-tight, totally balanced fandexes I've read, then yes, it'll be boring as hell and immediately offputting. Live a little!
You mean even GW creating an imbalanced game is a good thing in your eyes?
Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool. I want the first and foremost thought of a game designer's mind to be "how can I make this awesome", not "how can I balance this". Obviously a degree of balance is nessesary to play the game, but 40k has that anyway. I'd like to see some blatently under/over-costed units being bought into line but I don't see why the whole game should be completely overhauled.
|
How silly.
Do you really think a high point value makes a unit COOL
Balance would make the game more fun and varied, because it would finally mean there would be a reason to take all those units gathering dust on the shelf due to how obviously bad they are. It would also mean different types of lists would be viable, instead of "mass infantry and flyers/AA, or take allies that can, and if you can't do either then you suck", which is what 6th seems to be all about.
If you like spam armies and boring predictability, then GW is doing everything right and balance is indeed not what you want.
Easy E wrote: To do that, you make it just a bit imprecise so the players must engage ahead of time to talk about some aspects of the rules and the game they are about to play. This then is an "ice breaker" which allows for social development to grow from. If you set-up the rules ackcordingly, you can minimize conflict and instead encourage discussion. From these growing bonds of social interaction, the game designer has now created a space for a community to develop around as they have a certain "way" to play.
Except GW doesn't give a starting point for discussion, they write poor quality rules where you randomly encounter ambiguous or broken rules and have to argue about what the answer is. People don't show up to 40k night with a list of the most recent threads in YMDC and start every game with a round of negotiation about how each player expects to resolve those issues, they start the game and then worry about rule problems as they come up. There is no benefit gained from this at all.
2). Now, streamlined rules are bad for casual players because a discint set of clear and concise rules naturally leads people to no longer take the rules casually. The clearer and more concise, then people start to think that the "rules" are the be all and end all; and start worrying too much about "Official" this and "this is the correct way" versus just playing. It also tends to have people lean towards organized tournament play and the 'tourney practice" mindset, since the rules themselves lend themselves really well to such activities. This can be off-putting to someone who doesn't really care so much about the "correct" way and instead want to experience a general feel of play (Play in the child like sense, and not the competitive sense).
Sorry, but that's just nonsense. MTG has completely clear rules, and any possible rule question can be answered by simply looking up the answer in the rules (and if it can't be, it will be fixed in the next revision). And yet somehow MTG is still incredibly popular with casual players, including casual players who have no problems at all coming up with house rules for new and interesting ways of playing the game. The clarity of the rules doesn't in any way diminish their enjoyment of the game, it just means that they can focus on playing the game instead of arguing about what the rules should be.
Aerethan wrote: Now how great would it be if one of us won the Mega Millions lottery, bought out GW, and then hired Privateer Press or some other company to come in and fix everything?
and then hired Privateer Press or some other company to come in and fix everything?[
Something that needs to be mentioned here: yes, having "loose" rules sends a message that the goal of the game is "fun". However, what it really does is help every rules-lawyering TFG. Because guess who is going to take advantage of the ambiguity in the rules and exploit every loophole/poorly balanced unit/etc, and then argue their opponent into submission on every point? Exactly the kind of player that makes life hell for "casual" players. Compare this to a "tight" rule set where TFG might be able to play more competitively than their opponents, but at least has to follow the same clear and unambiguous rules as everyone else.
BryllCream wrote: I want the first and foremost thought of a game designer's mind to be "how can I make this awesome", not "how can I balance this".
And that's supposed to be why 40k uses a point system: the designer can focus on making a unit cool/fluffy/whatever, and then set an appropriate point cost for it. Having perfect balance through the point system doesn't in any way interfere with making things awesome, unless your idea of awesome is "completely overpowered auto-win toy for my tournament list".
It seems to me that some GW fans are almost reflexively adverse to the idea of GW adopting any sort of PP use technique. PP have shown they can make good, balanced, solid rules with plenty of diversity. There's no argument that the GW rules could be cleaned and cleared up and PP is known for it's clarity of rules. Why such strong opposition? The PP rules are sufficiently sturdy you can port 40K straight into it with nothing more than the making up of stats, preserve the flavour and feel of the units and know right off the bat you'll have less rules issues than the real 40k.
Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool. I want the first and foremost thought of a game designer's mind to be "how can I make this awesome", not "how can I balance this". Obviously a degree of balance is nessesary to play the game, but 40k has that anyway. I'd like to see some blatently under/over-costed units being bought into line but I don't see why the whole game should be completely overhauled.
No. Imbalance creates more homogeneity, because players must often choose between a rules-effective army and one that uses stuff they like for aesthetic or fluff reasons. When there's balance and the point values actually represent how good something is, you can just design the army you want within their guidelines and not worry about accidentally creating a sucky army, or one that's "too good" and gets you labelled a WAAC.
....what the hell did I just read. A balanced game is boring? You mean, like pretty much every sport out there? Unless we're talking about the whiny kids who cannot stand losing (we all know those) or GW whiteknights, a balanced ruleset is the most fun experience one can have because any mistake can clearly be related to your very own instead of poor rules writing. The fun lies in constantly improving your very own skill and nothing is as fun as winning because you are BETTER not because simply had more luck.
Plus: so an imbalanced game is fun? How much fun do all those WE and BM players have, getting steamrolled in every matchup? How much "fun" is a game where most people play 3-4 out of 10+ different armies because they are clearly superior?
....what the hell did I just read. A balanced game is boring? You mean, like pretty much every sport out there? Unless we're talking about the whiny kids who cannot stand losing (we all know those) or GW whiteknights, a balanced ruleset is the most fun experience one can have because any mistake can clearly be related to your very own instead of poor rules writing. The fun lies in constantly improving your very own skill and nothing is as fun as winning because you are BETTER not because simply had more luck.
Plus: so an imbalanced game is fun? How much fun do all those WE and BM players have, getting steamrolled in every matchup? How much "fun" is a game where most people play 3-4 out of 10+ different armies because they are clearly superior?
Some people are content just making up a bunch of stuff as they go along, throwing fist fulls of dice onto the table and justifying terrible rules writing because "the fluff says so and it's so cool". Personally i would feel like an idiot acting like this but to each his own.
I will say that a game like this would be tough to balance and it would take alot of testing but GW doesnt even try... At all. A prime example, they totally overhauled flier rules but leave the vendetta's point cost unadjusted? seriously?
If GW atleast made some attempt I think we could forgive them, no one is asking them to get it perfect. But you can tell they just rush the codexs out the door with little to no thought, full of typos and errors, they probably dont even proof read them. Ward goes around breaking everything horribly without anyone at GW noticing or giving a damn. Honestly it shows you how little they think of their customers. but I guess we all already knew that. I like the game designer to atleast try to make a intelligent, balanced intuitive rule set or why bother playing their game? Gw has zero respect for you as the player.
It seems to me that some GW fans are almost reflexively adverse to the idea of GW adopting any sort of PP use technique. PP have shown they can make good, balanced, solid rules with plenty of diversity. There's no argument that the GW rules could be cleaned and cleared up and PP is known for it's clarity of rules. Why such strong opposition?
I've found as a general rule that the people most critical of GW are people who have played GW games for a fairly long time, and know what the faults are, while people most critical of PP are usually those who haven't played it (or only tried it a little or in MK1), and go by gut feelings and hearsay. That's a generalisation, of course, and i'm not saying there aren't legitimate critisisms of PP, but I've found it true all too often. I think it would blow their minds to hear about beer and pretzels Warmahordes players like the ones I play with, or that the most competitive players I know have been warhammer/40k players.
But no, you couldn't just port 40k over to Warmahordes rules, they just feel and play so differently that the game feel would be lost. However, it would be possible to write rules that are solid and balanced, at least between factions, and rules that encourage a wide range of unit types over spamming a few of the strongest. The idea that inter-faction balance makes a game "boring" rather than more fun and exciting because of a close fought battle is, quite frankly, ludicrous to the extreme.
I've found as a general rule that the people most critical of GW are people who have played GW games for a fairly long time, and know what the faults are, while people most critical of PP are usually those who haven't played it (or only tried it a little or in MK1), and go by gut feelings and hearsay. That's a generalisation, of course, and i'm not saying there aren't legitimate critisisms of PP, but I've found it true all too often.
That's what I've generally found too, that they've spent a while around the painting table and go into it with a heavy sense of prejudice. But it just doesn't make sense given what we know. (Also I assume you're the same Maddermax from WAU?) I just don't get it though.
Maddermax wrote: But no, you couldn't just port 40k over to Warmahordes rules, they just feel and play so differently that the game feel would be lost.
Respectfully I disagree. I've managed such a thing, albeit limited, without creating a single new rule (a self imposed restriction). Given the freedom to actually create rules to capture the feel I am certain it could be done. Granted when I say 'feels like 40K' I'm talking about how I recall 40k, which is several editions removed from the current '40K trying to be Epic' we have now. Whether you like one game or the other is of course highly subjective.
Maddermax wrote: The idea that inter-faction balance makes a game "boring" rather than more fun and exciting because of a close fought battle is, quite frankly, ludicrous to the extreme.
100% agree with you. Balance and clear rules should be the goal of every game writer.
I couldn't believe when Napolean complained to Wellington that hiding behind hills and terrain were expressly forbidden in the Book of Gentleman's Warfare!
Then Wellington replied that Battle for Decision was also expressly forbidden and instead we were suppose to use a War of Maneuver.
Napolean just guffawed and told hims that the rules of Warfare had been FAQed and that War of Manuever was no longer the meta.
They then jawed on and on about the appropriate points cost for an Imperial Guardsman vs. a Portugese Grenadier. Then Blucher showed up and things got real!
I.e. This whole discussion is pointless and a kin to arguing politics/religion with someone. I don't particularly care for games with army lists and point costs now. When I was younger, I demanded it. Now that I am older, I don't care.
Play what you want to play. Find others who also want to play that way. Enjoy.
I will state the (not) radical opinion that balance is not in GW's best interest. Once you acheive balance, you can not sell various core rules, codex, and will have less army swapping.
If they acheive balance, they wil actually lose $$$.
BryllCream wrote: Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool
You're getting a lot of gak over this post but I agree with you. I'm not a veteran player like many players here but my gut feeling is that GWS never really intended for this to to be the super-competitive game it has become and they have actively tried to squash those elements of it.
Balance is overrated, anyway - I suspect if you copy and pasted Space Marines into 2 other factions, renamed them and gave them new models, you'd still have someone complaining Faction_Guard_Charlie are totally OP and Faction_Guard_Alpha needs to be buffed.
I also like the OP's idea of divorcing the mechanic side of the house from the design part, for what it's worth. I do think GWS does a pretty poor job with some of it's rulewriting currently so far as being vague, unclear, and poorly edited.
DeffDred wrote: One thing could clear up all these problems.
A split between friendly gaming and competative.
All rulebooks split into two halves.
A tournement legal list would be in each codex/rulebook so that when you went to a tournement it would be balanced.
If you play play space marines, you play an army with 4 across the board and a 3+ save.
No special rules, no characters no nothing. Just one usable list for every army for tournament play.
Every space marine player would have the exact same list. Ever Tau the same list. Every Necron player, Dark Eldar player ect.
Then if a host of a tourney wanted to he could simpley say "Tournement this weekend. Friendly lists welcome."
Or he could just tell everyone to keep the silly stuff at home.
Kind of like MtG. You can play in block or with whatever you own.
You obviously have no idea about good or competent game design, or about competitive balance.
Privateer Press, Corvus Belli, and I'm sure countless others manage to make games that are decently balanced and well written without having to gut themselves to such a ludicrous extent. What's more, both games present much more varied and tactical gameplay than GW's current offerings.
There is absolutely no excuse for GW not being able to write a competent and at least decently thought out ruleset that can apply to all levels of play.
Fafnir wrote: You obviously have no idea about good or competent game design, or about competitive balance.
When you assume you make an ass out of you and me.
You also generalize too much. You made comparasons to other games.
I'm talking about 40k. I hate Priveteer Press. I have no intrest in their method of game design.
I'm saying IF GW wanted to, they could easily make a standardised set of rules for competative play. Even a single list per faction.
Here let me give you an example.
Football. (Real football not that soccer crap)
You have two teams with the same number of players who have the same gear and goals.
Warhammer would be football with one team being able to throw the ball twice as far. Or have a team that runs twice as fast.
But if you pick one quarterback over another you have different options. Like Tom Brady casting lighting bolts. Or letting someone infiltrate into the end zone.
A true competetion in a 40k game would be a rock, paper, scissors kind of thing.
DeffDred, That is a brilliant idea---the one about making all SM armies; all DE armies; all Tau armies; etc. identical for competitive play.
GW could change up the list every year, say, so they could keep selling models. No bikes? This season you must field 5 Space Marines on bikes. Better buy some bikes.
If they kept the points values reasonable, people might be tempted into building multiple armies for a season.
They could also do tourneys with historical refights.
privateer4hire wrote: DeffDred, That is a brilliant idea---the one about making all SM armies; all DE armies; all Tau armies; etc. identical for competitive play.
GW could change up the list every year, say, so they could keep selling models. No bikes? This season you must field 5 Space Marines on bikes. Better buy some bikes.
If they kept the points values reasonable, people might be tempted into building multiple armies for a season.
They could also do tourneys with historical refights.
privateer4hire wrote: DeffDred, That is a brilliant idea---the one about making all SM armies; all DE armies; all Tau armies; etc. identical for competitive play.
GW could change up the list every year, say, so they could keep selling models. No bikes? This season you must field 5 Space Marines on bikes. Better buy some bikes.
If they kept the points values reasonable, people might be tempted into building multiple armies for a season.
They could also do tourneys with historical refights.
You'd need to double the amount of play/testing time of course. Still it might give the Fantasy guys something to do
You don't need two sets of rules. A single tightly written set of rules will service everyone just fine.
I'm honestly not sure you could balance all the weird and wacky stuff in GW's Core games. How do you balance fliers, tanks, and bizarre alien critters in a "battalion" level game? It would require a level of abstraction that GW players don't want.
If they did, more people would have played Epic: Armageddon.
Easy E wrote: I'm honestly not sure you could balance all the weird and wacky stuff in GW's Core games. How do you balance fliers, tanks, and bizarre alien critters in a "battalion" level game? It would require a level of abstraction that GW players don't want.
Honestly this is a hole GW have dug themselves into. Fliers and super heavies in particular do not belong in 40K, they belong in Epic. But they've made the kits and people have bought them- there's no removing them from the game now. EVERY edition of 40K will now have to balance in those things.
I personally liked the scale/detail/abstraction they used to have. On one end you have Epic, where a squad would fire as one unit (which 40K now has) and individual weapons didn't really come into it. Devastators for example just had 'heavy weapons'. And that's cool for 6mm dudes. Move to 40K and you get some more detail. Individual models now count (or did when I last played regularly) as did their armament. Hell each hand counted. But you didn't go into detail about how many grenades they had or which body part they were wounded in. For that you increase the scale again to Inquisitor. Basically the further out you got, the more abstract it became. I think this was a really great approach.
On the topic of rules though, and possiblly farming them out, is there a compelling reason to have the BS stat as it is? Once upon a time it served as a starting point to which modifiers were applied. Now it just seems to be a number that indicates another number. Sure it's not a complex mental feat but it just amuses me. Would it not be easier to say Marines have a BS of 3+?
You don't need two sets of rules. A single tightly written set of rules will service everyone just fine.
I'm honestly not sure you could balance all the weird and wacky stuff in GW's Core games. How do you balance fliers, tanks, and bizarre alien critters in a "battalion" level game? It would require a level of abstraction that GW players don't want.
Essentially, make sure that every force has some basic fundamentals that allow it to competently react to everything that could come its way.
Of course, that would involve discarding the current codex-writing-mantra of "just make up a bunch of new rules that override other rules, just because."
As it is now, it's like some armies are playing completely different games from others. And it's not like 40k is a very deep game (the ruleset itself may be arbitrarily convoluted and complex, but with the limited amount of actual viable choices afforded to players, it ends up becoming quite shallow), so this shouldn't be an issue.
Which is a pretty good example of self-balancing mechanics, but let's look at a MTG example that might be more relevant to 40k: balance through the metagame. Using the graveyard as a resource instead of just a discard pile (raising zombies, etc) is part of the game, but there have been overpowered decks that have gone too far in that direction and been able to re-use too much of their resources. So, to reduce the potential for graveyard mechanics WOTC will include cards like "remove all cards in your opponent's graveyard from the game". Normally this is a terrible card and won't see any play (since an average game doesn't see enough graveyard abuse to justify spending a card slot on such a narrow-role card), but if graveyard-based decks become too powerful then it has a better target, and decks start taking more options to punish the graveyard decks. This reduces the graveyard deck's chances of winning to a safe level, or even pushes it out of the metagame entirely until people get complacent and start taking their anti-graveyard tools out in favor of cards that are more effective against the new low-graveyard metagame. And since similar counter-strategy cards are waiting for all the other strategy archetypes things tend to go in cycles, with no single deck able to get complete dominance.
So, a good 40k example is how GWshould have handled flyers. If every army had access to AA units (playable ones, not necessarily top-tier powerful ones) on day one of 6th edition flyers probably would have been much less of a problem. Flyerspam would have been countered by increased AA before it started dominating too much, which would have reduced the number of AA units, which would have brought back flyerspam, in cycles until it reached an equilibrium with both flyers and anti-flyer units existing in balanced proportions.
Which is a pretty good example of self-balancing mechanics, but let's look at a MTG example that might be more relevant to 40k: balance through the metagame. Using the graveyard as a resource instead of just a discard pile (raising zombies, etc) is part of the game, but there have been overpowered decks that have gone too far in that direction and been able to re-use too much of their resources. So, to reduce the potential for graveyard mechanics WOTC will include cards like "remove all cards in your opponent's graveyard from the game". Normally this is a terrible card and won't see any play (since an average game doesn't see enough graveyard abuse to justify spending a card slot on such a narrow-role card), but if graveyard-based decks become too powerful then it has a better target, and decks start taking more options to punish the graveyard decks. This reduces the graveyard deck's chances of winning to a safe level, or even pushes it out of the metagame entirely until people get complacent and start taking their anti-graveyard tools out in favor of cards that are more effective against the new low-graveyard metagame. And since similar counter-strategy cards are waiting for all the other strategy archetypes things tend to go in cycles, with no single deck able to get complete dominance.
So, a good 40k example is how GWshould have handled flyers. If every army had access to AA units (playable ones, not necessarily top-tier powerful ones) on day one of 6th edition flyers probably would have been much less of a problem. Flyerspam would have been countered by increased AA before it started dominating too much, which would have reduced the number of AA units, which would have brought back flyerspam, in cycles until it reached an equilibrium with both flyers and anti-flyer units existing in balanced proportions.
I know we've butted heads a few times but I have to say that statement is exactly how I've been trying to explain myself to my friends.
When I say I'd like to see two different types of lists I should be more clear.
Imagine a codex that didn't have a force org. You pull out all the stops. You throw in FW and everything.
The force org. is whatever you want to play. The points you determine will set the limits of the play area. Maybe 1-1500pts 4x4, 2000-3000 4x6 and 3001+ is whatever you want.
At the back of the codex would be the "classic" force org chart with a designers note saying that "most" flgs will use this as a standard play method but they could have house rules.
For tournaments and such GW could have specific list that can be played. This is where rock, paper, scissors (the fundamental pillar of all games) comes into play.
They playtest forever (we are fantazing) and make lists of all kinds that have the MTG feel of use.
Basically the codex would be a playbook for imaginary games of war with friends while GW events (and flgs hosted events) would outline who gets to play with what.
It wouldn't be cut down to one list per army either. You could have 3 lists for each army. Rock paper scissors. If you get a "rock vs rock" ect. it would be mostly determined by objectives.
It could work out for GW buy having armies available in waves that have an overall theme. Each time a refit comes around they can add new units instead of updating things that have already been done.
I could carry one but it's late and I really have to finish these Daemonettes.
You don't need two sets of rules. A single tightly written set of rules will service everyone just fine.
I'm honestly not sure you could balance all the weird and wacky stuff in GW's Core games. How do you balance fliers, tanks, and bizarre alien critters in a "battalion" level game? It would require a level of abstraction that GW players don't want.
If they did, more people would have played Epic: Armageddon.
They could balance it fine, but it'd give the tanks, fliers and monstrous creatures huge points values so they'd rarely be fielded, and as such it'd hurt sales.
I'm sure GW could make a perfectly balanced game, but that doesn't give them the opportunity to push sales of whatever they are trying to promote. They want to sell large flyer kits, so flyers have become essentially must-have items.
I don't think it's as difficult to obtain balance (or, rather, "perfect imbalance", as actual balance is next to impossible) as you guys are making it out to be.
Well, perfect balance is largely impossible when there are two or more different factions that differ in some way, but so long as you can eliminate the "god tier" and the "garbage tier," give every side the tools needed to compete, and attempt to close the gap between all factions as much as possible, you can at least make something competent.
Completely agree. I just don't see a need for two separate sets of rules or even methods of playing the game as necessary measures in the quest to achieve that goal.
One set of rules, tightly balanced (within reason) and with a good amount of thought and testing put into it, will suffice.
On the subject of privateer press making the rules: why on earth would you want your competition to make your rules? How wwould that make sense at all? Just have fantasy flight games do it, they do well enough with their rpg books that they stay true to the crazy lore 40k has already.
BryllCream wrote: Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool
You're getting a lot of gak over this post but I agree with you. I'm not a veteran player like many players here but my gut feeling is that GWS never really intended for this to to be the super-competitive game it has become and they have actively tried to squash those elements of it.
The question remains, why are you assuming there has to be a choice between a fun game and a balanced one? My experience tells me that when the rules design is competent, those two things can co-exist just fine.
DeffDred wrote: One thing could clear up all these problems.
A split between friendly gaming and competative.
All rulebooks split into two halves.
A tournement legal list would be in each codex/rulebook so that when you went to a tournement it would be balanced.
That seems a bit defeatist. Balancing a wide and varied model range can be done; it has been done.
BryllCream wrote: Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool
You're getting a lot of gak over this post but I agree with you. I'm not a veteran player like many players here but my gut feeling is that GWS never really intended for this to to be the super-competitive game it has become and they have actively tried to squash those elements of it.
The question remains, why are you assuming there has to be a choice between a fun game and a balanced one? My experience tells me that when the rules design is competent, those two things can co-exist just fine.
That's the problem. People, especially GW, assume they can't. Games-Workshop has dug themselves a hole where they are pestered constantly about updating their rules, yet they keep throwing stupid gak like "it's cinematic!" in there. I don't know if this is intended as a balance mechanic or what, but that is the complete wrong way to go about it. Having competent people write competent rules that random people on the internet don't need to house rule in order to make it play better would be a step in the right direction. Just purchase FFG, fire the writers from GW and hire them as FFG, though outright purchase of FFG would result in the degradation of that company the same way GW is degrading, and that would be bad.
McNinja wrote: On the subject of privateer press making the rules: why on earth would you want your competition to make your rules? How wwould that make sense at all?
You have to divorce the idea from the current status. I'm more curious as to people's reaction to the idea of it, not the current competitive relationship they share. It seems some people who love 40K or Fantasy would recoil and avoid a PP re-write (however they came to be doing it- just skip that for the moment) based merely on the fact it was PP doing it, as if there was some great track record of power imbalances and sloppy rules. I think GW should be looking at the areas where PP (and other companies) have had more success than them and copying/adapting it. Be it rules, bits, release schedule or whatever but there are people who would oppose such just because PP did it first.
As for Fun vs Tight in rules I'll say this: Never in all the years of playing different tabletop games has a rules dispute or poor unit balance enhanced my enjoyment of the game. It has however several times detracted from it.
Elemental wrote: That seems a bit defeatist. Balancing a wide and varied model range can be done; it has been done.
Sure, it's just not profitable.
On the contrary, a system that balances factions adequately, so that none are left behind, while allowing a flow through of newer models, will be more attractive to more players, and will grow the game. You make changes to the meta that flow through to the armies that people are using, and encourage a variety of viable units and play styles, to encourage a breadth of army building. It can certainly be very profitable.
privateer4hire wrote: DeffDred, That is a brilliant idea---the one about making all SM armies; all DE armies; all Tau armies; etc. identical for competitive play.
GW could change up the list every year, say, so they could keep selling models. No bikes? This season you must field 5 Space Marines on bikes. Better buy some bikes.
If they kept the points values reasonable, people might be tempted into building multiple armies for a season.
They could also do tourneys with historical refights.
You'd need to double the amount of play/testing time of course. Still it might give the Fantasy guys something to do
Elemental wrote: That seems a bit defeatist. Balancing a wide and varied model range can be done; it has been done.
Sure, it's just not profitable.
On the contrary, a system that balances factions adequately, so that none are left behind, while allowing a flow through of newer models, will be more attractive to more players, and will grow the game. You make changes to the meta that flow through to the armies that people are using, and encourage a variety of viable units and play styles, to encourage a breadth of army building. It can certainly be very profitable.
Sorry, let me clarify.
The suits at GW don't agree with you. I'm sure the suits at Privateer Press do.
However, one method is much harder to do successfully than the other.
AFAIK there are two ways to increase minature sales with rules.
Organic growth, which is popular with most GAMES companies.
You write the most elegant and intuitive rule set you can, which delivers great game play perfect game imbalance.
This means ALL minatures are viable and bought ALL the time by many players.
And the company can update and add new minatures/units to the game with regular updates to the rules army lists.
(A campain book adding new units to the factions taking part in the campain is quite popular method.)
This appeals strongest to gamers who grow the market share and player base of the game and associated minatures by word of mouth.
Cyclical promotion.
Spend a fortune developing new minatures every few months then pimp them mercilessly with 'special rules' to make the new releases appeal to the 'core demoghraphic'.
(11 to 16 year old boys, apparently)
Then spend a fortune on B&M stores so you can use isolationist marketing to artificially raise the price to cover the cost of development , production and retail.
This messes up game play, and raises the barrier to entry of the game.(Fiscal scaling and all that.)
IF GW plc are writing rules PURELY for narrative co-operative games, as many say.Then simply get rid of PV in the codex/army books and just print senarios for campain play, etc.Then NO ONE would complain about the awful game balance and over complication in the rules.
A well defined intuitive and elegant rule set can be used for ALL play types.
Its much easier to house rule fun(weird) stuff onto a well defined intuitive and elegant set of rules.
Than it is to try to get better game play from a diffuse, and counter intuitive rule set.
"You'd need to double the amount of play/testing time of course."---referring to fixed set armies where all, for example, Space Marine forces in tourney play consist of the same units and model load-outs)..."
I'd think it would be even easier and less time intensive for any playtesting.
Since the designers know what each army comprises they should be able to relatively quickly balance stuff out.
If they this included historical rematches where even the terrain (and possibly even deployment positions) are pre-mapped, playtesting would be even easier for them.
Even if you don't balance the forces, in a historical refight you could have both players always play two games (once as blue force and once as red).
That would help get away from list building being the end-all of things AND sell each player a core rulebook; scenario book; and possibly two fixed set armies.
rigeld2 wrote: Why do people find it difficult to separate "balance" from "wel written rules"?
I'd be fine with different tier codexes, etc. if the rules were better written.
If players of the same skill level are incapable of playing at (near) the same level because of decisions that take place before the game even begins, then the rules are inherently poorly written.
So you're okay with a person not being able to reasonably win in a game because his favourite army is incompetently designed (the codex, not the army list) and lacks the tools needed to address its threats?
Fafnir wrote: So you're okay with a person not being able to reasonably win in a game because his favourite army is incompetently designed (the codex, not the army list) and lacks the tools needed to address its threats?
Yes, I am. A "fluffy" player wouldn't care and a "competitive" player wouldn't complain about having to jump armies.
Clearly Fafnir you're supposing the existence of some kind of crazy hybrid player who enjoys fair competition and winning on merits AND likes his army for more than it's stats. How many people like fairness and chose their armies because they thought they were cool?
Fafnir wrote: Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?
... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)
I'm just saying that the two goals, while not mutually exclusive, are not attached at the hip either.
Fafnir wrote: Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?
... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)
I'm just saying that the two goals, while not mutually exclusive, are not attached at the hip either.
Or go play Warpath, pretty much: balanced 40k with no silly childshy rules of randomnes doom...
"...Or go play Warpath, pretty much: balanced 40k with no silly childshy rules of randomnes doom..."
I like Mantic, and all, but WP in its current form needs additional work.
The 2.0 version is a big improvement but it's not ready for prime time esp. when it's competing with entrenched games from bigger companies.
Fafnir wrote: Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?
... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)
I'm just saying that the two goals, while not mutually exclusive, are not attached at the hip either.
So your solution is to tell my opponent to sandbag. That's just a bad experience for everyone. My opponent doesn't get to play what they want, and I know that any victory I earn is based on my opponent letting me have it.
House rules and handicaps are not solutions. They do not carry over well to random games, and fail to address the actual elements of bad game design, doing more to limit gameplay options on a whole.
If you care only about fluff, disregard the rules entirely, and make a diorama.
Kojiro wrote: Clearly Fafnir you're supposing the existence of some kind of crazy hybrid player who enjoys fair competition and winning on merits AND likes his army for more than it's stats. How many people like fairness and chose their armies because they thought they were cool?
Why should someone have to choose between an army they like and an army they stand a chance of winning a game with?
Since it costs so much to jump armies, and you may not realise how poor they are until after you've invested a lot of time and money into your first army, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that army to have the same odds of winning as any others. Not everyone things getting tabled every game is fun, or that having to bend the rules to avoid getting tabled (handicaps, or sandbagging) is fun either.
I'm assuming the vast majority of players just want to pick a faction they like the look of, build up a force, and play with it, with a reasonable chance of victory.
I'm also in the camp that doesn't understand why it has to be balanced OR casual, as no other game I've got/read/played casually has the same balance issues.
Fafnir wrote: Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?
... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)
Seems like a lot of work & potential aggro that could be avoided by just having well-written rules, so we can both jump in and play and know that skill in playing was the biggest factor. Again, what does anyone lose with balanced rules?
Seems like a lot of work & potential aggro that could be avoided by just having well-written rules, so we can both jump in and play and know that skill in playing was the biggest factor. Again, what does anyone lose with balanced rules?
Fafnir wrote: Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?
... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)
Seems like a lot of work & potential aggro that could be avoided by just having well-written rules, so we can both jump in and play and know that skill in playing was the biggest factor. Again, what does anyone lose with balanced rules?
If you hadn't removed the last line of that post, you could have read my answer. Instead you choose to attack part of the post.
That's very poor form.
Fafnir wrote: Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?
... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)
I'm just saying that the two goals, while not mutually exclusive, are not attached at the hip either.
So your solution is to tell my opponent to sandbag. That's just a bad experience for everyone. My opponent doesn't get to play what they want, and I know that any victory I earn is based on my opponent letting me have it.
Most of the time when I play I don't care about the result, it's the rolling dice and social experience that I enjoy.
House rules and handicaps are not solutions. They do not carry over well to random games, and fail to address the actual elements of bad game design, doing more to limit gameplay options on a whole.
I meant official handicaps - I could've been clearer with that.
And it's more of a "whoops. Until we address this with new rules (change the point value | blue guys get X more points | other solution)" kind of thing.
If you care only about fluff, disregard the rules entirely, and make a diorama.
Could you maybe exaggerate my point a little more? That'd be great.
But you do not speak for every casual player out there. I'm a casual gamer wargaming-wise and I still care about the results of the game. It's not fun to lose most (if not all) the time just because the army you like fluff-wise is underpowered. It's also not fun to tell your opponent to pull the punches, both to him/her and to me since I'm taking away and dictating to him/her what he/she should play, and I feel inadequate that I have to basically neuter my opponent in order to win. I doubt it if anyone feels better playing a handicapped game.
Balance and fluffiness are not joined in the hip, yes. But balance just makes the gameplay better. So why not have balance?
Don't be ridiculous. No one is saying 'PERFECTION OR NOTHING!' The call is for more balance, nothing else.
There is a long continuum from perfection to utter garbage. GW sits, for all its experience and resources, further away from the 'Perfect' end of the line than they should. The real problem is that a) they seem to have no interest in moving further that way and b) people seem to think it's either not worth while or not possible. Hence the question.
Easy E wrote: Can someone point me to this "mythcial" balanced wargame? Every game system I have ever seen has people moaning about this or that being "wrong".
Very true, none of them are perfect, but most of them seem a lot better. I've never heard anyone complain about balance issues in Warmachine, or any historicals.
I guess no one has gotten it right yet, so how do we expect Games Workshop to do it?
Since GW is by far the biggest company in the market, by orders of magnitude, we'd expect GW to be able to do a much better job of things like rules than smaller companies, especially in some cases they have more writing/design staff than competitors have employees*. Yet GW seems to be particularly bad in this respect so it's got nothing to do with resources or need; it's either that they just suck at it, or they don't care.
I do think most of the balance and rules problems with GW is that they've tried to keep things somewhat compatible with codices from the previous editions, and the marketing requirement for new things to be supercool resulting in an abundance of overlapping and conflicting special rules. They could really do with a complete rules reboot, but I can't see that happening going by the current business direction.
*I think Westwind have 7 staff in total (including warehouse and manufacturing), yet have produced 2 pretty polished sets of rules + expansions that appear to be pretty balanced (I've read but not played them). Admittedly the factions are much smaller and there are less unit types, but again they are a tiny company compared to GW.
Haven't tried Warmahordes so can't comment on that. Infinity, however, is super balanced. No faction is overpowered, no "power lists", no "must have this unit or else I'm uncompetitive" and you even have to try hard in order to make a weak list.
Moaning =/= the game is not balanced. There will always be moaning, but that does not mean that the game is imbalanced. But that does not mean you should ignore the moaning either: sometimes the criticism is legit. But once again, let me point you out to Infinity and you're free to check the official forums. The main consensus is that there's no overpowered tactic and overpowered faction, nor overpowered list. The people who cry that certain parts of the game is imbalanced haven't played it much, therefore they still haven't learned how to counter certain tactics. Infinity is a very unforgiving rules set that can punish you a lot for making tactical errors. And while there are some criticisms about the wording/translation of the rules (which to be fair does not come up in a game 99% of the time), I've never seen anyone who played it for a time criticize it for imbalance so far. Thus the saying "it's not your list, it's YOU!" Some people feel a bit off by that statement, but it has a certain amount of truth in it: Infinity is more about how you use the tools you bring and not about the tools that you bring.
Easy E wrote: Can someone point me to this "mythcial" balanced wargame? Every game system I have ever seen has people moaning about this or that being "wrong".
Sure, we all have games we prefer, but for every wargame we prefer; there is someone out there moaning about it.
I guess no one has gotten it right yet, so how do we expect Games Workshop to do it?
There is no perfect balance, but there is far better balance that GW has attained.
There are also two types of balance you have to look at - internal faction balance (intra-faction balance), and inter-faction balance.
Intra-faction balance means having many different options to create a viable lists, without a single list or spamming a few certain units being overwhelmingly better. While the ideal here would be to have every option be just as good as the other, but this is actually very difficult to accomplish across a wide range of options, and even in the best balanced of games some units might come in behind the average, or have niche rolls in the meta game. However as long as there are a good number of viable competitive builds in every faction, and no reasonable build or option is completely uncompetitive, that is enough, you can't ask much more than that. Warmachine, despite it's reputation for balance, has a few units that I couldn't recommend to beginners, because their roll can often be covered better by other options. However, there are so many options and combinations that having a few that are sub-optimal is not unconscionable.
Then there's Inter-faction balance, and this is what most people are talking about when they mention "balance". Now, this is very hard to judge in many cases, but it means that games between players of a similar skill level, and with a reasonable collection of options, should expect to have even odds of winning a game regardless of faction. It also means, for competitive gamers, that at the top levels of the game, no factions are hugely dominant nor unable to win.
Now, the other part of the "balance" argument, is how companies go about working towards "balance". PP's (and other companies) method of constant slow releases for all factions allows one very useful thing - the correction of certain imbalances, both intra and inter, as they come to light. When Cygnar was struggling in the tournament scene, they got a few releases that helped them close some gaps in their capabilities. While "broadside bart" was one of the least competitive Mercenary casters, the release of the Galleon made him into an extremely viable competitive caster again. And, quite importantly, nothing is released without other armies having a good answer to it (which often prompts changes in the Meta game about what people bring), so you don't have situations like Flyer Spam, where a new gizmo simply outshines older options.
Anyway, it would be good if GW worked towards not having particular factions or narrow builds dominate, but not enough play testing, edition creep and long periods between releases make this difficult. I'm not going to go on about what they should do, many others will give their opinions on that, but I will point out that GW does have options for balancing their armies better.
Just to get a few talking points in, here are my thoughts from the last 8 pages. I've spoilered my responses just to save space.
warboss wrote: If you haven't already, you need to start playing Palladium RPGs. You'll find them to be the coolest most exciting few hours you're capable of having by your own definition. I personally find them to be a poster child for why games need to be mechanically sound before adding in the "cool" stuff.
Spoiler:
Really? REALLY? There is ZERO balance in the Palladium systems. Every Rifts book tries to one-up the last one, to the point that the maker had to APOLOGIZE for how broken the South America (and I believe Australia?) book was, and that no one should play with it. Not to mention you will spend literal hours creating a single character -- that's ridiculous.
Don't get me wrong, I love the worlds Palladium has created (Nightbane is probably my favorite setting, barre none), but there's a reason people are constantly trying to rewrite the rules to fit the d20 system. (I think I've seen three major attempts since WotC released the d20 OGL.)
Peregrine wrote: Sorry, but that's just nonsense. MTG has completely clear rules, and any possible rule question can be answered by simply looking up the answer in the rules (and if it can't be, it will be fixed in the next revision). And yet somehow MTG is still incredibly popular with casual players, including casual players who have no problems at all coming up with house rules for new and interesting ways of playing the game. The clarity of the rules doesn't in any way diminish their enjoyment of the game, it just means that they can focus on playing the game instead of arguing about what the rules should be.
Spoiler:
This and this again. MTGs rules are not only clear, but they hardly ever change -- A player that started in the 90s, and stopped in the 90s, can pick up a new deck and learn the new rules (for their own deck, at least) in one or two games. A 40k player that stopped in the 90s has to completely learn the rules to the game again, plus the rules for their army. Yes, [most of]their models are still playable (which isn't the case with 90s MTG cards), but how effective they are is another matter.
Conversely, MTG is a horrible thing to cite in terms of game balance. There's a reason certain cards have been completely banned from tournaments, even where older cards are allowed.
And I'm sorry, really. I am. Ruining everyone's fun.
Spoiler:
Paraphrasing wrote:"A balanced game isn't fun..." "If a player just wants to have fun, he shouldn't be playing with the 'big boys' who want to compete... Or he should ask the competitive players to dumb down their armies..." "Some armies are just meant to suck more than others..."
I know my post-count is highly inferior to all of you, but lemme just ask this: are you arguing that imbalance is fun, competitive is superior to casual, some armies simply suck, etc. because you're a huge fan of curbstomping your opponent by abusing loopholes?
In my perfect world, 40k would be balanced well enough that any unit choice isn't automatically a handicap (I'm looking at you DE Mandrakes, DA Vets..), and no unit is so broken that more than one of them is almost an auto win (CSM Heldrakes, DE Venoms...). A little imbalance is good, but not to the point that it has been. There is no logical reason that 4e codexes should be so inferior to 6e codexes, or vice versa. A new codex shouldn't nerf your army, nor should it give you a new unfair advantage.
I think GW working with a second company, where the second company deals with rules-only (with respect to fluff), is an ideal situation. Hell, just having a rules-only division would be an improvement (WHY do people who write the fluff also get to write the rules? So Matt Ward can [insert time where Matt Ward did something ridiculous with the fluff that he then tried to justify in the rules, or he wrote into the fluff something that's strictly impossible ruleswise]? Why is there only one person writing the rules in the first place (Okay, I know there are multiple authors, but at GW it seems to be more of a one-man-show with a bunch of smaller homies behind him shouting, "YEAH!" at everything that one man does)?) The rules could potentially balance themselves out, and the books would possibly end up cheaper... And then GW could focus on making awesome models for every unit (There's no concievable reason that the Voidraven Bomber should have gone this long without a model, ESPECIALLY with the Flyer push and Death from the Skies). Cheaper books would mean we have more money to spend on models, and balanced rules would mean we're spending our money on the better looking models (again, looking at you, Mandrakes).
Who knows... it looks like GW is ramping up to sell itself, so we may get what we ask for sooner than we expect.
rigeld2 wrote: an both jump in and play and know that skill in playing was the biggest factor. Again, what does anyone lose with balanced rules?
If you hadn't removed the last line of that post, you could have read my answer. Instead you choose to attack part of the post.
That's very poor form.
Huh. No offence or rhetorical point-scoring intended, I just snipped the bit of the quote that I wasn't replying to, as I often do when quoting, to avoid pyramids or piles of irrelevant text (a quick look at my post history should confirm this). You can believe differently if you prefer.
rigeld2 wrote: an both jump in and play and know that skill in playing was the biggest factor. Again, what does anyone lose with balanced rules?
If you hadn't removed the last line of that post, you could have read my answer. Instead you choose to attack part of the post.
That's very poor form.
Huh. No offence or rhetorical point-scoring intended, I just snipped the bit of the quote that I wasn't replying to, as I often do when quoting, to avoid pyramids or piles of irrelevant text (a quick look at my post history should confirm this). You can believe differently if you prefer.
And by doing so completely changed the meaning of my post. And, more importantly IMO, if you'd have read the sentence you snipped your post would've been answered before you typed it.
Also, if you're going to snip please try and leave quote blocks correct for those who quote you.
Moaning =/= the game is not balanced. There will always be moaning, but that does not mean that the game is imbalanced. But that does not mean you should ignore the moaning either: sometimes the criticism is legit. But once again, let me point you out to Infinity and you're free to check the official forums. The main consensus is that there's no overpowered tactic and overpowered faction, nor overpowered list. The people who cry that certain parts of the game is imbalanced haven't played it much, therefore they still haven't learned how to counter certain tactics. Infinity is a very unforgiving rules set that can punish you a lot for making tactical errors. And while there are some criticisms about the wording/translation of the rules (which to be fair does not come up in a game 99% of the time), I've never seen anyone who played it for a time criticize it for imbalance so far. Thus the saying "it's not your list, it's YOU!" Some people feel a bit off by that statement, but it has a certain amount of truth in it: Infinity is more about how you use the tools you bring and not about the tools that you bring.
It's worth mentioning that a lot of Infinity's inherent balance comes from the fact that every faction and every unit have the safeguards in place to deal with every situation. First and foremost, every single armed unit has the capacity to deal respectable damage to every other unit. So even though a specific (and overspecialized) loadout may put you at a disadvantage against a certain force, even with the most basic weaponry, you can still actually fight back. Second, every faction has access to essentially the same tools as every other faction, the main difference being how each faction uses these tools.
Granted, this specific form of balance may not work with 40k's larger army based scale, but the idea of making sure that every army has the tools in place to at least deal with every threat should not be something difficult to understand or achieve.
Matney X wrote: Just to get a few talking points in, here are my thoughts from the last 8 pages. I've spoilered my responses just to save space.
warboss wrote: If you haven't already, you need to start playing Palladium RPGs. You'll find them to be the coolest most exciting few hours you're capable of having by your own definition. I personally find them to be a poster child for why games need to be mechanically sound before adding in the "cool" stuff.
Spoiler:
Really? REALLY? There is ZERO balance in the Palladium systems. Every Rifts book tries to one-up the last one, to the point that the maker had to APOLOGIZE for how broken the South America (and I believe Australia?) book was, and that no one should play with it. Not to mention you will spend literal hours creating a single character -- that's ridiculous.
Don't get me wrong, I love the worlds Palladium has created (Nightbane is probably my favorite setting, barre none), but there's a reason people are constantly trying to rewrite the rules to fit the d20 system. (I think I've seen three major attempts since WotC released the d20 OGL.)
Peregrine wrote: Sorry, but that's just nonsense. MTG has completely clear rules, and any possible rule question can be answered by simply looking up the answer in the rules (and if it can't be, it will be fixed in the next revision). And yet somehow MTG is still incredibly popular with casual players, including casual players who have no problems at all coming up with house rules for new and interesting ways of playing the game. The clarity of the rules doesn't in any way diminish their enjoyment of the game, it just means that they can focus on playing the game instead of arguing about what the rules should be.
Spoiler:
This and this again. MTGs rules are not only clear, but they hardly ever change -- A player that started in the 90s, and stopped in the 90s, can pick up a new deck and learn the new rules (for their own deck, at least) in one or two games. A 40k player that stopped in the 90s has to completely learn the rules to the game again, plus the rules for their army. Yes, [most of]their models are still playable (which isn't the case with 90s MTG cards), but how effective they are is another matter.
Conversely, MTG is a horrible thing to cite in terms of game balance. There's a reason certain cards have been completely banned from tournaments, even where older cards are allowed.
And I'm sorry, really. I am. Ruining everyone's fun.
Spoiler:
Paraphrasing wrote:"A balanced game isn't fun..." "If a player just wants to have fun, he shouldn't be playing with the 'big boys' who want to compete... Or he should ask the competitive players to dumb down their armies..." "Some armies are just meant to suck more than others..."
I know my post-count is highly inferior to all of you, but lemme just ask this: are you arguing that imbalance is fun, competitive is superior to casual, some armies simply suck, etc. because you're a huge fan of curbstomping your opponent by abusing loopholes?
In my perfect world, 40k would be balanced well enough that any unit choice isn't automatically a handicap (I'm looking at you DE Mandrakes, DA Vets..), and no unit is so broken that more than one of them is almost an auto win (CSM Heldrakes, DE Venoms...). A little imbalance is good, but not to the point that it has been. There is no logical reason that 4e codexes should be so inferior to 6e codexes, or vice versa. A new codex shouldn't nerf your army, nor should it give you a new unfair advantage.
I think GW working with a second company, where the second company deals with rules-only (with respect to fluff), is an ideal situation. Hell, just having a rules-only division would be an improvement (WHY do people who write the fluff also get to write the rules? So Matt Ward can [insert time where Matt Ward did something ridiculous with the fluff that he then tried to justify in the rules, or he wrote into the fluff something that's strictly impossible ruleswise]? Why is there only one person writing the rules in the first place (Okay, I know there are multiple authors, but at GW it seems to be more of a one-man-show with a bunch of smaller homies behind him shouting, "YEAH!" at everything that one man does)?) The rules could potentially balance themselves out, and the books would possibly end up cheaper... And then GW could focus on making awesome models for every unit (There's no concievable reason that the Voidraven Bomber should have gone this long without a model, ESPECIALLY with the Flyer push and Death from the Skies). Cheaper books would mean we have more money to spend on models, and balanced rules would mean we're spending our money on the better looking models (again, looking at you, Mandrakes).
Who knows... it looks like GW is ramping up to sell itself, so we may get what we ask for sooner than we expect.
There ISN'T one person writing the rules. The writing credits go to the person writing the fluff. He is also collating and describing the rules, but they are worked on by the whole design team.I don't want cheaper books. I like the nice, hardcover presentation. I agree about the voidraven though. Chapterhouse, get on it!
The new books are nice, but I can get the same quality book for an RPG for considerably less money. The Pathfinder core rulebook, which clocks in at 516 pages, is only $34 bucks.
I stand corrected on the rules thing. I had assumed it was the same person who wrote the fluff, who then presented it to a small number of people to make sure "it works."
Great, then we all agree that when we say "Balance" we understand that it is a moving target with no real "answer" that will satisfy everyone. Even the vaunted bar of balance; Warmachine has things people find more or less optimal.
Also, what do we "lose" with a more balanced suystem? I would argue that you lose the ability to look beyond the rules and decide with your oppoenent what makes sense to the game you are playing. Can you still do it? Sure, but the less "permissive" the rules system is perceived the less likely people are to allow for "permission".
We already have seen it in GW when they made "Forgeworld" optional and came up with Non-Tournament Legal lists such as the Undead Pirates. You can still find the threads where people go around and around about whether something is "legal" and playable. That is what the goal of balance "Uber Alles" brings, stupid legality arguments that turns gamer against gamer.
In an RPG, I agree that a more permissive system is good, but tabletop wargaming isn't an RPG. It's competitive, where certain players are more than willing to abuse loopholes and bad wording in their favor (yeah, that happens in RPGs, too, but in that case the GM can look across his coffee table and say, "Steve, you're being a dick," without a TO being called over to make an executive decision.)-- in tabletop wargaming, we need a well structured, less permissive, ruleset.
That my friend is a huge assumption. However, if you start with that assumption, your conclusion makes logical sense.
I'm starting to think that all this balance nonsense is more of a symptom of GW's "Hook Up" gaming culture or one off, pick-up games with relative strangers.
As an aside: You will note that 40K started with a GM.
I don't mean competitive as in tournaments, but competitive in the idea that you're versus whoever is across the table from you. Granted, you could probably run a single-player escalation campaign with lots of storytelling, with the GM running whatever needs to be ran.
Matney X wrote: FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.
40k is a bad rule-set to begin with. And it certainly would never work for an RPG.
Also, what do we "lose" with a more balanced suystem? I would argue that you lose the ability to look beyond the rules and decide with your oppoenent what makes sense to the game you are playing. Can you still do it? Sure, but the less "permissive" the rules system is perceived the less likely people are to allow for "permission".
See, my perspective is that with balanced systems, you're not forced to do that. I don't have to carefully negotiate with my opponent so that my army isn't "too good", I can simply play them. If you mean "makes sense" in terms of what should logically happen vs what the rules say should happen, that's a real minefield of subjectivity.
Easy E wrote: We already have seen it in GW when they made "Forgeworld" optional and came up with Non-Tournament Legal lists such as the Undead Pirates. You can still find the threads where people go around and around about whether something is "legal" and playable. That is what the goal of balance "Uber Alles" brings, stupid legality arguments that turns gamer against gamer.
No, that's just a product of GW not being able to just say "You can / cannot play Forgeword stuff / these unusual lists without the approval of your opponent like you can stuff in the codexes." with sufficient clarity. Compare to Privateer's new theme lists from No Quarter which explicitly say "These are official rules, and 100% tournament legal.", and the historical scenarios that clearly say "These are not balanced for regular play, so you can't use these variant rules in regular games without your opponent's permission.". No such arguments there.
Also in my experience, the argument that balanced games lead to a less friendly experience is a complete and utter myth. If anything, I've had less friendly games back when I played 40K, when it gets bogged down with an argument about if you have line of sight, or what happens with a strange rules interaction where a case could be made for either side.
Matney X wrote: I don't mean competitive as in tournaments, but competitive in the idea that you're versus whoever is across the table from you.
I'm not either. I assume that playing a game is a cooperative act. It takes two (or more) people to play game. If no chooses to play againt you, see what good your fancy list, armies, and models do you then?
Therefore, it is not a competitive siutation, but a cooperative situation. Both players are attempting to play a game for the purpose of enjoyment. Enjoyment various between players.
Easy E wrote: Great, then we all agree that when we say "Balance" we understand that it is a moving target with no real "answer" that will satisfy everyone. Even the vaunted bar of balance; Warmachine has things people find more or less optimal.
Also, what do we "lose" with a more balanced suystem? I would argue that you lose the ability to look beyond the rules and decide with your oppoenent what makes sense to the game you are playing. Can you still do it? Sure, but the less "permissive" the rules system is perceived the less likely people are to allow for "permission".
We already have seen it in GW when they made "Forgeworld" optional and came up with Non-Tournament Legal lists such as the Undead Pirates. You can still find the threads where people go around and around about whether something is "legal" and playable. That is what the goal of balance "Uber Alles" brings, stupid legality arguments that turns gamer against gamer.
So you'd rather have a loose ruleset where games can be halted because of stupid rules issues than a tightly-written and balanced ruleset that has solved all of the rule interaction issues?
Matney X wrote: FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.
Well, I need only point to PPsIron KIngdoms Full Metal Fantasy as to why we shouldn't have a 40kRPG based on the TT rules.
I like WarmaHordes, but I just do not like IKRPG. I would have liked to have seen a game that was more about being an RPG and not another miniswargame like Inquisitor.
Matney X wrote: FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.
Well, I need only point to PPsIron KIngdoms Full Metal Fantasy as to why we shouldn't have a 40kRPG based on the TT rules.
I like WarmaHordes, but I just do not like IKRPG. I would have liked to have seen a game that was more about being an RPG and not another miniswargame like Inquisitor.
How does a combat system reflecting the TT version take away from its validity as an RPG?
Matney X wrote: FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.
Well, I need only point to PPsIron KIngdoms Full Metal Fantasy as to why we shouldn't have a 40kRPG based on the TT rules.
I like WarmaHordes, but I just do not like IKRPG. I would have liked to have seen a game that was more about being an RPG and not another miniswargame like Inquisitor.
How does a combat system reflecting the TT version take away from its validity as an RPG?
For me it loses validity when it feels like another miniswargame. I liked some aspects of the game, specifically the character creation, but after that it felt like one flimsy excuse after another to move on to the next combat scenerio.
Matney X wrote: FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.
Well, I need only point to PPsIron KIngdoms Full Metal Fantasy as to why we shouldn't have a 40kRPG based on the TT rules.
I like WarmaHordes, but I just do not like IKRPG. I would have liked to have seen a game that was more about being an RPG and not another miniswargame like Inquisitor.
How does a combat system reflecting the TT version take away from its validity as an RPG?
For me it loses validity when it feels like another miniswargame. I liked some aspects of the game, specifically the character creation, but after that it felt like one flimsy excuse after another to move on to the next combat scenerio.
That could be your particular GM. I played a session of DnD 4th edition that lasted for 8 hours, it was just moving between encounters, no RP. That's not the fault of the game, just the GM.
Matney X wrote: FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.
Well, I need only point to PPsIron KIngdoms Full Metal Fantasy as to why we shouldn't have a 40kRPG based on the TT rules.
I like WarmaHordes, but I just do not like IKRPG. I would have liked to have seen a game that was more about being an RPG and not another miniswargame like Inquisitor.
How does a combat system reflecting the TT version take away from its validity as an RPG?
For me it loses validity when it feels like another miniswargame. I liked some aspects of the game, specifically the character creation, but after that it felt like one flimsy excuse after another to move on to the next combat scenerio.
That could be your particular GM. I played a session of DnD 4th edition that lasted for 8 hours, it was just moving between encounters, no RP. That's not the fault of the game, just the GM.
Normally I would agree...but just reading through certain RPGs you see where it is going; Call of Cthulhu, for example, does not make combat a friendly option. I dare say IKRPG does not make role playing a friendly option.
Otherwise I will agree to disasgree to keep this from going off topic of the OP.
ProtoClone wrote: Normally I would agree...but just reading through certain RPGs you see where it is going; Call of Cthulhu, for example, does not make combat a friendly option. I dare say IKRPG does not make role playing a friendly option.
Otherwise I will agree to disasgree to keep this from going off topic of the OP.
Easy E wrote: Great, then we all agree that when we say "Balance" we understand that it is a moving target with no real "answer" that will satisfy everyone. Even the vaunted bar of balance; Warmachine has things people find more or less optimal.
Also, what do we "lose" with a more balanced suystem? I would argue that you lose the ability to look beyond the rules and decide with your oppoenent what makes sense to the game you are playing. Can you still do it? Sure, but the less "permissive" the rules system is perceived the less likely people are to allow for "permission".
We already have seen it in GW when they made "Forgeworld" optional and came up with Non-Tournament Legal lists such as the Undead Pirates. You can still find the threads where people go around and around about whether something is "legal" and playable. That is what the goal of balance "Uber Alles" brings, stupid legality arguments that turns gamer against gamer.
So you'd rather have a loose ruleset where games can be halted because of stupid rules issues than a tightly-written and balanced ruleset that has solved all of the rule interaction issues?
Since I have played enough war games and been around on planet Earth long enough, I know that a "tightly written and balanced rules set that solved all rule interactions issues" is a Unicorn. Yeah, that is exactly what I am saying.
I would prefer a system that encourages players to work with each other instead of against each other when dealing with the odd situations.
Easy E wrote: Great, then we all agree that when we say "Balance" we understand that it is a moving target with no real "answer" that will satisfy everyone. Even the vaunted bar of balance; Warmachine has things people find more or less optimal.
Also, what do we "lose" with a more balanced suystem? I would argue that you lose the ability to look beyond the rules and decide with your oppoenent what makes sense to the game you are playing. Can you still do it? Sure, but the less "permissive" the rules system is perceived the less likely people are to allow for "permission".
We already have seen it in GW when they made "Forgeworld" optional and came up with Non-Tournament Legal lists such as the Undead Pirates. You can still find the threads where people go around and around about whether something is "legal" and playable. That is what the goal of balance "Uber Alles" brings, stupid legality arguments that turns gamer against gamer.
So you'd rather have a loose ruleset where games can be halted because of stupid rules issues than a tightly-written and balanced ruleset that has solved all of the rule interaction issues?
Since I have played enough war games and been around on planet Earth long enough, I know that a "tightly written and balanced rules set that solved all rule interactions issues" is a Unicorn. Yeah, that is exactly what I am saying.
I would prefer a system that encourages players to work with each other instead of against each other when dealing with the odd situations.
Indeed the perfect rules are non-existant, but all rules writers should be striving towards perfect rules.
I'd prefer a system where the rules are clearly defined and there are minimal odd situations to deal with, allowing players to focus on playing the game and having fun, rather than trying to agree on what's meant to happen next.
All game developers and gamer players expect the odd situation that falls out side the rules as written, to be resolved in a mutually agreed way.
NO one expects absolutely everything possible to be covered by the rules.
However, this idea is exploited to the extreme by lazy rules writers , who expect players just to dice off EVERY poorly defined rule /resolution system they write.
Eg in 20 years of playing Firefly, we had very few instances of a ODDBALL situation NOT covered by the rules .
The one I remember ,(because it was one of my games,)was low flying ground attack aircraft, flying through air burst artillery fire.
The rules for ground attack aircraft at all levels were perfectly clear.
The rules for artillery barrages of all types were perfectly clear.
Just the chance of ground attack aircraft being caught in an air burst artillery barrage was so slim, the rules simply did not include it.
Now compare this to the chance of normal weapon -target interaction in 40k, and the amount of ambiguity in the rules .
40k suffers from this because the rules are written in an exclusive way rather than an inclusive way.
I would prefer a system that encourages players to work with each other instead of against each other when dealing with the odd situations.
which is hardly anathema to the notion of a "balanced wargame". ergo, you dont need a loosely worded vague and inconsistent rules set to be able to work "with" your opponent to resolve the issues.
Matney X wrote: FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.
Well, I need only point to PPsIron KIngdoms Full Metal Fantasy as to why we shouldn't have a 40kRPG based on the TT rules.
I like WarmaHordes, but I just do not like IKRPG. I would have liked to have seen a game that was more about being an RPG and not another miniswargame like Inquisitor.
How does a combat system reflecting the TT version take away from its validity as an RPG?
For me it loses validity when it feels like another miniswargame. I liked some aspects of the game, specifically the character creation, but after that it felt like one flimsy excuse after another to move on to the next combat scenerio.
That could be your particular GM. I played a session of DnD 4th edition that lasted for 8 hours, it was just moving between encounters, no RP. That's not the fault of the game, just the GM.
That actually IS partly the fault of D&D 4th. It is very combat focused.
And 40kTT wouldn't work as an rpg combat system for many reasons that i can list if you want.
